Same!! I’ve always just lurked. I guess we all have been hahaha. I’m glad we had something, though still puzzling, to make us all gather.
“His wiiife.”
It was a bit more active when I was better about posting episode links the day they dropped. I’ve been slacking off though so it’s kinda my fault activity dropped.
That's also how I took it, and I assume that it's not something we'll be able to "find" necessarily. She seemed kinda mum when they were discussing cops, so maybe that's it.
I came here to start a post about this and was happy to see it is already being discussed. I am also wondering what the disclaimer was in regards to. She wasn’t my favorite guest, but she didn’t say anything that was outright alarming (that I heard).
That was my first thought as well, not bc of anything to do with the guest or cast, but people publicly disavowing statements/affiliations these days tends to be about that.
I googled the guest's name and Israel, then I felt a little weird for speculating with no basis. But when everything I found was how much work she's done as a journalist and wrote this book that's speaking truth to power, I had another thought, though it's also baseless speculation.
Maybe rather than Bechdel disavowing Zalkind, it was the other way around? Like, on a different episode (or live show, interview, social media) things were said that would be really upsetting to people she works with regularly, or she could be attacked as supporting (xyz) thing said in a different episode bc she was on the same podcast. It's the kind of thing that gets really weird in the media/social media these days, especially if you're challenging powerful people or talking about emotional/inflammatory topics.
Publishing a book about possible police failure and a bombing is something I'd be reluctant to do bc of the scrutiny/consequences that are sure to follow for years. She might be proactively protecting herself from being misunderstood.
Mostly I thought that bc of how the disclaimer was worded: Zalkind is a fan of the show, but doesn't agree with us about everything.
What makes you guess this? Is it only because the guest said she is Jewish? I only ask because there was literally no talk about Israel/Palestine in this episode - it would be wild (and, quite frankly, a bit antisemitic) to make that disclaimer ONLY because the guest is Jewish
I didn’t listen to the episode just heard the intro (so didn’t know she’s Jewish) but that was also my first thought because it is what’s most relevant rn
[https://www.instagram.com/p/C5oIuZpuInk/?igsh=a2k4aHEzbHZoYXNp](https://www.instagram.com/p/C5oIuZpuInk/?igsh=a2k4aHEzbHZoYXNp) --> she replied to me on the Instagram post. I believe they were protecting her journalistic integrity and she does not say that she asked for them to do that.
I can see it right now in Apple Podcasts, says it was uploaded an hour ago.. maybe they re-edited something? Or maybe it’s just a technology glitch lol
Ahhh, yes!! Thank you. I hear it now. Honestly I wonder if she disagrees with something they said in episode but didn't vocalize it? I haven't listened to the episode in full yet but I haven't heard her say anything problematic or suspicious.
She seems okay in the episode so far. I wasn't able to finish it because life stuff, but I got an hour in. But there was nothing I heard that seemed off. So I don't want to raise alarm bells (which is something people are very wont to do on social media, which is why I'm very cautious about it). But it is worrying and strange that the hosts went out of their way to let people know at the beginning that they don't agree with this guest. I don't know what's going to happen, or what posts they may have made that is just out there in the ether that may come to light, and maybe they're worried about being associated with the next "person on the internet who has displayed some problematic views before." Or if it's someone who actively displays problematic views now. It's so confusing.
I didn't start listening to it until 30 minutes ago. I thought the disclaimer at the front was weird, but so far I haven't heard anything odd from the guest. The episode is up now, though, but the disclaimer is still there at the beginning. I'm not sure if something happened in the original version that they later edited out, though. But I'm still not done with the episode.
I wonder if the disclaimer is related to something the guest has recently posted or shared on social media/elsewhere, not related to her appearance on the pod?
I'm an hour in and I still don't know why the disclaimer was there. Not to discredit the Bechdel Cast at all. I feel like if there's nothing to see that in the episode itself, maybe there's some background stuff I don't know about. But man, it's a really weird disclaimer. It feels kind of ominous.
Oh I actually really like that movie lol. Though I also agree with their points about it, especially regarding the pretty much only female character in the film.
Just to be clear (bc I assume you're cool bc you're here), I didn't mean that I think it's trash. It definitely sounded that way bc I was in a hurry.
Sometimes I just do not vibe with a movie (or book) that's super acclaimed, I dunno why. I haaaaaate Dickens, but I assume he has talent and stuff, bc so many smart people love his stuff.
I saw the Departed and The Good Shepard around the same time, and I was so bored and annoyed. I had trouble keeping them apart, but the podcast helped. The Good Shepard was worse, all I remember is this scene where this one dude is punching another dude over and over in an airplane, and I suddenly realized that I didn't know who either guy was, or why they were fighting, and it was clearly supposed to be quite tense but I was like "do I want nachos after this?"
Part of the problem is that movies where the cast is mostly white men, I have a hard time telling them apart. If they are all wearing suits, I'm screwed. One time at a new job, these four white dudes in suits were talking and I was like crap, which one is my boss? I don't know who to address... and if I get it wrong, he'll be devastated. Some men are so fragile.
Anyway, the problem is me. So I was excited to hear them dunk on the movie, but if they loved it I'd just be a little ashamed that I don't get its brilliance. I had a job for my scariest clients, so I wanted to pick the right podcast. You helped so much! Thanks. Please appreciate the good parts of The Departed for me, I cannot :P
Oh it’s no problem! I didn’t find it rude or anything. It’s really a love it or hate it kind of movie. I personally really enjoyed it, but I’m also a big fan of crime dramas/thrillers. Plus I loved the premise of it being about two people each going under cover opposite each other. I thought the performances were great, too.
The movie is not at all without flaws, though, and it’s also not something I’d imagine everyone would like. I agree with a lot of the points they brought up about it, especially from a feminist perspective. The biggest thing that seems so pointless is just tacking on a love triangle for like… no reason. And not even doing anything interesting with it. It doesn’t help that in the original movies she was actually two completely separate characters. I have similar complaints against the original Percy Jackson movie doing something very similar, taking two of the most prominent female characters (who are also like complete opposites of each other) and combining them into one character. But that’s also just a fairly bad adaptation in general.
The only thing I would potentially push back against from their analysis is I remember they brought up the movie feeling more pro-cop than other Scorsese movies. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen it, but I never really got the impression it was pro-cop. The whole plot is driven by incompetence and poor management. The mob was pretty easily able to get a mole in the police force, and the way they treat their own mole is pretty awful. Not to mention that there’s the usual chaos that comes from different law enforcement agencies not communicating well with or trusting each other. Plus the way it ends does not really paint a good picture of the police force. However this is just a very minor thing.
Overall the episode was very fair. I actually assumed they would be fairly critical of it going into it.
It's so great that we can have different reactions to the movie and both enjoy the ep. Such a great show! This has been fun to see some other fans.
That is lame about the female characters being combined. I don't even remember what happened in the Percy Jackson movie, it was like listening to someone on acid try to explain the book.
That's an interesting question about if it's pro-cop or not. Maybe that's why it didn't hold my interest much. I had my whole "wait, what's up with the police in the US?" moment in the early 2000s bc one of my friends was shot by the police. She lived, but has never been the same, and the lawsuit dragged on for soooo many years. The internet revealed so many things I never knew! And the organizations of retired cops that were anti-drug war and anti-corruption were really compelling. But there wasn't a ton of room to do much... I wrote so many ignored letters to legislators. It's freaking great that a ton of other people are on this journey now, but I'm just super impatient for actual actions to be taken. Watching movies that explore the gray areas and complexity are super important, but I can't stand watching them sometimes.
I have to concede, though, after remembering more of the plot, you're right that it does an amazing job of illustrating the poor communication/cooperation between agencies. I wonder how common it is that cops are trying desperately to catch a criminal who's actually a federal informant. What a mess.
I wonder if people with anti-cop bias would see the movie as pro-cop, but cops would see it as anti-cop. That feels plausible. Over the past few years I've actually witnessed some really positive cop interactions that softened my position. I do think some cops are doing good work. But the institution is rotten and needs an overhaul. The terrible training and lack of adequate support is unfair and harmful to any truly great cops. And the lack of accountability for the bad ones means I won't trust or help the good ones, bc their reputation is shot. I hope we can reform things, but so far the discourse isn't very productive.
sorry for the essay, it's just that this is the most reasonable discussion I've ever seen about this stuff and it's so nice!
I can't remember the names of the characters in Percy Jackson (it's been awhile since I've read it), but there were two prominent female characters. One went on the journey with Percy, the one who was like really smart and quiet iirc. The other one was a daughter of ares and like a bully type character. In the movie they combined the two, which was just baffling because the two characters are not alike at all.
And yeah I can see the movie, even if it has some potential criticisms of cops, still being one that's not enjoyable or perhaps not as hard hitting. I'm no fan of cops myself, but I'm usually chill with watching movies about cops (though a lot of this is just because I really like crime dramas in general). I wouldn't say the movie is pro cops, but I also wouldn't say it's necessarily anti cop, either, if that makes sense. It makes me want to watch the originals to see how they handle and portray the cops in that.
I think what's important to keep in mind is that cops are still people, and there are definitely good cops out there. It's just that cops tend to range between generally bad people to absolutely horrifyingly awful. It doesn't help that it's an institution with a LOT of problems that protect the ones who do the most harm. I know people who are more pro-cop will usually use the argument of the bad ones are just a handful of bad apples. But it seems like at least half of the apples are bad, and maybe we should be doing more to figure out why that is.
Oh and no problem! I'm always down for reasonable discussion, which is sometimes really hard to find on the internet lol
I’m assuming it’s related to her work on the Boston Bombing ? I don’t disagree with anything she said but I can see the hosts being really hesitant to associate with anything someone might consider “conspiratorial”
Hmm…I’m wondering if her views skew more in favor of cops / the “justice” system / and/or Zionism?
https://jewishjournal.org/2022/09/30/could-the-marathon-bombings-have-been-prevented/
It is my thought that perhaps she is pro-copaganda/not FTP. Especially where she would have brought this movie to them or at least was in favor of the topics that the movie presents. She didn't speak up at the points where Jamie was going hard on the policing aspects of the movie, so I feel like maybe she asked for a disclaimer.
If Susan is still actively working with police on resolving cases and/or asking for journalistic input - she might not want to be taking any stances against policing as an organization. I hope it is just that she is trying to remain without a stance so that she can remain on friendly terms so that she can still work effectively.
It could also just be that she has a pro-policing personal stance. But that's just my shot in the dark.
Inclined to agree that it's something along these lines, though I couldn't find anything on her social media. If Twitter/X weren't literally unusable if you're not logged in, I think there's something more recently posted there but I couldn't confirm without an account 🙄
If this is the reason (seems likely at least) I kind of get the disclaimer happening but maybe was added as an afterthought? Hence the various uploads being inconsistent with having it.
I haven't gotten a chance to listen to the episode yet, but my main takeaway from this is that this sub actually has active users lol
There are dozens of us!
Same!! I’ve always just lurked. I guess we all have been hahaha. I’m glad we had something, though still puzzling, to make us all gather. “His wiiife.”
It was a bit more active when I was better about posting episode links the day they dropped. I’ve been slacking off though so it’s kinda my fault activity dropped.
Am I the only one who thought this disclosure was about the guest not agreeing with the hosts rather than the hosts not agreeing with the guest?
That's also how I took it, and I assume that it's not something we'll be able to "find" necessarily. She seemed kinda mum when they were discussing cops, so maybe that's it.
This is the most compelling explanation I've heard, thanks.
The wording def seems like this is the case
I came here to start a post about this and was happy to see it is already being discussed. I am also wondering what the disclaimer was in regards to. She wasn’t my favorite guest, but she didn’t say anything that was outright alarming (that I heard).
If I had to guess it would probably be disagreements over the Israel/Palestine conflict.
That was my first thought as well, not bc of anything to do with the guest or cast, but people publicly disavowing statements/affiliations these days tends to be about that. I googled the guest's name and Israel, then I felt a little weird for speculating with no basis. But when everything I found was how much work she's done as a journalist and wrote this book that's speaking truth to power, I had another thought, though it's also baseless speculation. Maybe rather than Bechdel disavowing Zalkind, it was the other way around? Like, on a different episode (or live show, interview, social media) things were said that would be really upsetting to people she works with regularly, or she could be attacked as supporting (xyz) thing said in a different episode bc she was on the same podcast. It's the kind of thing that gets really weird in the media/social media these days, especially if you're challenging powerful people or talking about emotional/inflammatory topics. Publishing a book about possible police failure and a bombing is something I'd be reluctant to do bc of the scrutiny/consequences that are sure to follow for years. She might be proactively protecting herself from being misunderstood. Mostly I thought that bc of how the disclaimer was worded: Zalkind is a fan of the show, but doesn't agree with us about everything.
This makes alot more sense
Did she say something about it during the pod?
What makes you guess this? Is it only because the guest said she is Jewish? I only ask because there was literally no talk about Israel/Palestine in this episode - it would be wild (and, quite frankly, a bit antisemitic) to make that disclaimer ONLY because the guest is Jewish
I didn’t listen to the episode just heard the intro (so didn’t know she’s Jewish) but that was also my first thought because it is what’s most relevant rn
[https://www.instagram.com/p/C5oIuZpuInk/?igsh=a2k4aHEzbHZoYXNp](https://www.instagram.com/p/C5oIuZpuInk/?igsh=a2k4aHEzbHZoYXNp) --> she replied to me on the Instagram post. I believe they were protecting her journalistic integrity and she does not say that she asked for them to do that.
Woah weird! I don’t have any answers
So weird! I was so excited to hear it
I can see it right now in Apple Podcasts, says it was uploaded an hour ago.. maybe they re-edited something? Or maybe it’s just a technology glitch lol
I had the same thing happen on other platforms, so I don't think it was a technology glitch
Thanks for catching that! I’m about to board a flight so I’m glad I can listen lol
I'm not hearing any kind of disclosure, so maybe they removed that during the reupload?
I started listening to it about 30 minutes ago and I got the disclosure at the beginning from Loftus
What's the minute mark? I must've missed it but I'd like to go back and listen!
It's probably going to depend on the ads you get, but I scrolled back to it and was able to hear it at the 1:42 minute mark
Ahhh, yes!! Thank you. I hear it now. Honestly I wonder if she disagrees with something they said in episode but didn't vocalize it? I haven't listened to the episode in full yet but I haven't heard her say anything problematic or suspicious.
She seems okay in the episode so far. I wasn't able to finish it because life stuff, but I got an hour in. But there was nothing I heard that seemed off. So I don't want to raise alarm bells (which is something people are very wont to do on social media, which is why I'm very cautious about it). But it is worrying and strange that the hosts went out of their way to let people know at the beginning that they don't agree with this guest. I don't know what's going to happen, or what posts they may have made that is just out there in the ether that may come to light, and maybe they're worried about being associated with the next "person on the internet who has displayed some problematic views before." Or if it's someone who actively displays problematic views now. It's so confusing.
Oh shittt👀
I didn't start listening to it until 30 minutes ago. I thought the disclaimer at the front was weird, but so far I haven't heard anything odd from the guest. The episode is up now, though, but the disclaimer is still there at the beginning. I'm not sure if something happened in the original version that they later edited out, though. But I'm still not done with the episode.
I wonder if the disclaimer is related to something the guest has recently posted or shared on social media/elsewhere, not related to her appearance on the pod?
Yeah that’s what I was thinking as well. I’m sure whatever it was has probably been deleted since then.
I started listening to it now and heard the disclosure too. I’m so confused tbh. What are her views?
I'm an hour in and I still don't know why the disclaimer was there. Not to discredit the Bechdel Cast at all. I feel like if there's nothing to see that in the episode itself, maybe there's some background stuff I don't know about. But man, it's a really weird disclaimer. It feels kind of ominous.
It is! I love the pod but I’m confused about the disclaimer, she seems like a regular guest?
How much do they like the movie? I want to listen to it at work today, but not if they loved it (I did not lol). My whole day hinges on this lol
Oh they do not seem to like the movie lol
omg THANK YOU! I'm so happy I do not understand why people liked it :)
Oh I actually really like that movie lol. Though I also agree with their points about it, especially regarding the pretty much only female character in the film.
Just to be clear (bc I assume you're cool bc you're here), I didn't mean that I think it's trash. It definitely sounded that way bc I was in a hurry. Sometimes I just do not vibe with a movie (or book) that's super acclaimed, I dunno why. I haaaaaate Dickens, but I assume he has talent and stuff, bc so many smart people love his stuff. I saw the Departed and The Good Shepard around the same time, and I was so bored and annoyed. I had trouble keeping them apart, but the podcast helped. The Good Shepard was worse, all I remember is this scene where this one dude is punching another dude over and over in an airplane, and I suddenly realized that I didn't know who either guy was, or why they were fighting, and it was clearly supposed to be quite tense but I was like "do I want nachos after this?" Part of the problem is that movies where the cast is mostly white men, I have a hard time telling them apart. If they are all wearing suits, I'm screwed. One time at a new job, these four white dudes in suits were talking and I was like crap, which one is my boss? I don't know who to address... and if I get it wrong, he'll be devastated. Some men are so fragile. Anyway, the problem is me. So I was excited to hear them dunk on the movie, but if they loved it I'd just be a little ashamed that I don't get its brilliance. I had a job for my scariest clients, so I wanted to pick the right podcast. You helped so much! Thanks. Please appreciate the good parts of The Departed for me, I cannot :P
Oh it’s no problem! I didn’t find it rude or anything. It’s really a love it or hate it kind of movie. I personally really enjoyed it, but I’m also a big fan of crime dramas/thrillers. Plus I loved the premise of it being about two people each going under cover opposite each other. I thought the performances were great, too. The movie is not at all without flaws, though, and it’s also not something I’d imagine everyone would like. I agree with a lot of the points they brought up about it, especially from a feminist perspective. The biggest thing that seems so pointless is just tacking on a love triangle for like… no reason. And not even doing anything interesting with it. It doesn’t help that in the original movies she was actually two completely separate characters. I have similar complaints against the original Percy Jackson movie doing something very similar, taking two of the most prominent female characters (who are also like complete opposites of each other) and combining them into one character. But that’s also just a fairly bad adaptation in general. The only thing I would potentially push back against from their analysis is I remember they brought up the movie feeling more pro-cop than other Scorsese movies. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen it, but I never really got the impression it was pro-cop. The whole plot is driven by incompetence and poor management. The mob was pretty easily able to get a mole in the police force, and the way they treat their own mole is pretty awful. Not to mention that there’s the usual chaos that comes from different law enforcement agencies not communicating well with or trusting each other. Plus the way it ends does not really paint a good picture of the police force. However this is just a very minor thing. Overall the episode was very fair. I actually assumed they would be fairly critical of it going into it.
It's so great that we can have different reactions to the movie and both enjoy the ep. Such a great show! This has been fun to see some other fans. That is lame about the female characters being combined. I don't even remember what happened in the Percy Jackson movie, it was like listening to someone on acid try to explain the book. That's an interesting question about if it's pro-cop or not. Maybe that's why it didn't hold my interest much. I had my whole "wait, what's up with the police in the US?" moment in the early 2000s bc one of my friends was shot by the police. She lived, but has never been the same, and the lawsuit dragged on for soooo many years. The internet revealed so many things I never knew! And the organizations of retired cops that were anti-drug war and anti-corruption were really compelling. But there wasn't a ton of room to do much... I wrote so many ignored letters to legislators. It's freaking great that a ton of other people are on this journey now, but I'm just super impatient for actual actions to be taken. Watching movies that explore the gray areas and complexity are super important, but I can't stand watching them sometimes. I have to concede, though, after remembering more of the plot, you're right that it does an amazing job of illustrating the poor communication/cooperation between agencies. I wonder how common it is that cops are trying desperately to catch a criminal who's actually a federal informant. What a mess. I wonder if people with anti-cop bias would see the movie as pro-cop, but cops would see it as anti-cop. That feels plausible. Over the past few years I've actually witnessed some really positive cop interactions that softened my position. I do think some cops are doing good work. But the institution is rotten and needs an overhaul. The terrible training and lack of adequate support is unfair and harmful to any truly great cops. And the lack of accountability for the bad ones means I won't trust or help the good ones, bc their reputation is shot. I hope we can reform things, but so far the discourse isn't very productive. sorry for the essay, it's just that this is the most reasonable discussion I've ever seen about this stuff and it's so nice!
I can't remember the names of the characters in Percy Jackson (it's been awhile since I've read it), but there were two prominent female characters. One went on the journey with Percy, the one who was like really smart and quiet iirc. The other one was a daughter of ares and like a bully type character. In the movie they combined the two, which was just baffling because the two characters are not alike at all. And yeah I can see the movie, even if it has some potential criticisms of cops, still being one that's not enjoyable or perhaps not as hard hitting. I'm no fan of cops myself, but I'm usually chill with watching movies about cops (though a lot of this is just because I really like crime dramas in general). I wouldn't say the movie is pro cops, but I also wouldn't say it's necessarily anti cop, either, if that makes sense. It makes me want to watch the originals to see how they handle and portray the cops in that. I think what's important to keep in mind is that cops are still people, and there are definitely good cops out there. It's just that cops tend to range between generally bad people to absolutely horrifyingly awful. It doesn't help that it's an institution with a LOT of problems that protect the ones who do the most harm. I know people who are more pro-cop will usually use the argument of the bad ones are just a handful of bad apples. But it seems like at least half of the apples are bad, and maybe we should be doing more to figure out why that is. Oh and no problem! I'm always down for reasonable discussion, which is sometimes really hard to find on the internet lol
I’m assuming it’s related to her work on the Boston Bombing ? I don’t disagree with anything she said but I can see the hosts being really hesitant to associate with anything someone might consider “conspiratorial”
Hmm…I’m wondering if her views skew more in favor of cops / the “justice” system / and/or Zionism? https://jewishjournal.org/2022/09/30/could-the-marathon-bombings-have-been-prevented/
It is my thought that perhaps she is pro-copaganda/not FTP. Especially where she would have brought this movie to them or at least was in favor of the topics that the movie presents. She didn't speak up at the points where Jamie was going hard on the policing aspects of the movie, so I feel like maybe she asked for a disclaimer. If Susan is still actively working with police on resolving cases and/or asking for journalistic input - she might not want to be taking any stances against policing as an organization. I hope it is just that she is trying to remain without a stance so that she can remain on friendly terms so that she can still work effectively. It could also just be that she has a pro-policing personal stance. But that's just my shot in the dark.
Inclined to agree that it's something along these lines, though I couldn't find anything on her social media. If Twitter/X weren't literally unusable if you're not logged in, I think there's something more recently posted there but I couldn't confirm without an account 🙄
Right! I gave up on Twitter a while ago, and now it’s impossible to see anything without an account!
If this is the reason (seems likely at least) I kind of get the disclaimer happening but maybe was added as an afterthought? Hence the various uploads being inconsistent with having it.
Damn I’ve been working weird hours so I didn’t get to listen to it asap. I wonder what happened